Is God real post your thoughts!

[mmmcannibalism]

Rational people do not wish for things and hope they come true in real life.

 

So, youve never wanted anything to happen in your life I take it? I mean if rational people never wish for anything then your either irrational or have zero ambition. Unless of course some outside force is making everything you accomplish in life happen but since you say there is no god that cant be possible.

 

 

 

Oh btw, believing in something =/= thinking I have to be right

 

 

 

If you ask ten people what the best color is you will get somewhere between 1 and 10 different answers, each persons believes it but that doesnt mean they obsess if someone thinks teal while they think light blue.

 

 

 

edit--to above post, if probability is >0 then probability of not being true is also <100. If there is not a 100% chance god doesnt exist then saying you know he doesnt exist makes no sense. Accepting the possibility but saying you dont believe there to be a god= aceppting the possibility but saying you believe there is a god.

[tryto]

Rational people do not wish for things and hope they come true in real life.

 

So, youve never wanted anything to happen in your life I take it? I mean if rational people never wish for anything then your either irrational or have zero ambition. Unless of course some outside force is making everything you accomplish in life happen but since you say there is no god that cant be possible.

 

 

 

Oh btw, believing in something =/= thinking I have to be right

 

 

 

If you ask ten people what the best color is you will get somewhere between 1 and 10 different answers, each persons believes it but that doesnt mean they obsess if someone thinks teal while they think light blue.

 

 

 

edit--to above post, if probability is >0 then probability of not being true is also <100. If there is not a 100% chance god doesnt exist then saying you know he doesnt exist makes no sense. Accepting the possibility but saying you dont believe there to be a god= aceppting the possibility but saying you believe there is a god.

 

 

 

 

 

I may have misspoke; I mean do not expect them to happen solely from wishing.

 

For example, someone once told me that they prayed really hard during exams. I remarked that studying works better. Surely everyone will agree on that.

 

Nothing that I do can affect the existence of a deity, especially wishing.

 

 

 

your analogy is not apt; because "best" is a matter of perception and is an opinion. Even if I think that there are twenty skins on this forum, it doesn't make it so. The answer is independent of what I think. Just like god's existence or non existence.

 

 

 

Sure you may not "have" to be right, but then what's the point of debating on this subject? I could just go "it's my opinion that god exists, poodles have hidden gills under their fur, plants have hearts and do not perform photosynthesis, and purple cannot be worn by Caucasians; it's physically impossible.", but that would not make any of them true, and all of them could be wrong. Just because it's my opinion doesn't mean I don't have to back up these fabulous statements with proof in an argument.

 

 

 

Quote:

 

The thing is, the universe doesn't change itself to adapt to our wishes.

 

 

 

 

 

Got any proof?

 

 

 

I just wished really hard for my computer screen to turn blue. It didn't happen. Prove it does. If you're claiming that the universe DOES adapt to our wishes, you have the burden of proof.

 

That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. ~Christopher Hitchens

[Lenticular_J]

I just wished really hard for my computer screen to turn blue. It didn't happen. Prove it does. If you're claiming that the universe DOES adapt to our wishes, you have the burden of proof.

 

That is such an idiotic idea. If you're the first one to claim it, whether you're saying "THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN" or "THIS DOES HAPPEN", you should have to prove it. It's stupid. And that's the only "argument" people find "good". "YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT" "WHY" "BECAUSE THIS GUY SAID YOU DO" "OH OKAY"

 

 

 

It's such a tired "argument". This is a tired "debate". You're doing nothing by yelling at each other saying you each need to prove it. And I doubt anyone that prays cares that you think they're irrational for it.

 

 

 

Nothing that I do can affect the existence of a deity, especially wishing.

 

Hm. Nobody is getting through to you that personal beliefs are all perspective? That nobody's right with anything except through their own eyes?

 

 

 

Do you believe that love is a real thing? Or does somebody have to hand a box full of emotion to you?

[tryto]

Yes, personal beliefs are based on perspective. That doesn't affect their existance in the real world. For example, if you accept Christianity's teachings, God existed before humans. Ok? Then that would mean that God exists independently of humans believing in him.

 

 

 

The point of the burden of proof is to prevent people from stating idiotic things, then, because no one can disprove it, claiming it's true. I can't state purple bunnies exist and expect to get away with it, just because no one can claim that it's false.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... proof.html

 

 

 

Love is a human emotion. It cannot exist without beings capable of expressing it. There is no floating cloud of "love" in the air.

 

 

 

Oxygen is an element. It existed before humans. Without humans, there would still be oxygen. Before humans recognized oxygen existed and discovered it, it still existed, unlike love.

 

 

 

Note that because I'm a nice guy, I showed some proof against the Universe affected by wishing hypothesis. I attempted it, and it failed. Sure, it's possible. But there's no reason for my to think so, unless I'm shown some proof.

 

 

 

This applies to things I like to. I'm happy to prove evolution. I'm happy to prove electromagnetism. I'm happy to prove gravity, and happy to prove Snell's law. If I saw a yeti, I would attempt to show proof of such a being if I wanted everyone to believe me. Otherwise, I could state I saw a yeti, then dare anyone to show negative proof of it. Once none satisfactory to me is forthcoming(because negative proof can never be completely conclusive in this case) I can then state that the yeti exists because no one proved me wrong. And that is why the burden of proof is necessary.

 

 

 

Yes, opinions are based on perspective. But claims about all powerful beings that are "infinite" are not. If they are infinite, they existed before you thought of your personal belief, and thus are objective and based outside of you thinking so.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, if you want to claim that the existence of gods is based on perspective, and god is different for everyone, then it's quite easy to claim that god has been invented by humans, and you'd have a devil of a time trying to deny my claim, while keeping yours. Of course, you're not stating that, it would be shooting yourself in the foot.

 

 

 

Thinking that the concept of the burden of proof is a rule someone made up for no reason at all, is simply ridiculous. Do you think that when philosophy first started(it didn't) that some guy made up a slew of rules with no reasons behind them, and everyone decided to follow these for no rules at all?

[Marco]

I don't really want to get too involved with the whole God(s) debate, as it seems more of a debate as to the wording of each user's posts than the actual possibility of gods.

 

 

 

I personally see myself as an agnostic; I do not care whether or not God exists. There is a chance that He does, aswell as a chance that He doesn't.

 

I don't like the idea of attributing a percentage chance on the existance of a God, because, in my mind, it doesn't work. I do, however, storngly disagree with the possibility that the chances between something existing and something not existing are even. If nothing more, the rise and fall of the hundreds of different religions and beliefs/superstitions in the past show quite clearly that, at best, it seems unlikely that there is a God, going by the various popular religions of today.

 

 

 

Regarding the point of Zierro's (serious?) call for proof of tryto's comment;

 

The thing is, the universe doesn't change itself to adapt to our wishes.

 

 

 

 

To be frank, I get the impression that Zierro wasn't posting in all seriousness. Going by his logic displayed in other topics I don't think that he meant to imply that the burden of proof should be switched, and that the universe may change with belief.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, enough of distractions. My post here comes after reading the previous comment from Zierro & tryto. If anyone is interested in the idea of a god existing simply by proof alone, you should take a look at the satirical novel "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett, part of (although a stand-alone book in) the Discworld series.

 

The book gives an interesting take on the philosophy of the life and death of a god through belief as well as the co-dependancy of man and god, and is one of my favourite books having read several times now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Reader review from Amazon]This rare "stand-alone" Discworld novel (like Pyramids and Moving Pictures, it is not part of any previously defined sub-series of novels) sticks organized religion on a spit and broils it mercilessly. It follows a young priest named Brutha, who is the last true believer of the great god Om, in spite of it being the state religion of the theocratic dictatorship of Omnia. On Discworld, gods can manifest to the proportion of their true believers, and because only Brutha is left, Om can only manifest as a one-eyed tortoise. Brutha discovers Om, literally, and carries Om in tortoise form with him through his journeys.

 

 

 

His commander is Lord Vorbis, a blackly pious inquisioner who has no difficulties with torturing unbelievers. The Omnian priests openly pity those who have not accepted Om, though they unknowningly betray the fact that they themselves don't believe in Om so much as the Religion of Om. Therein lies the problem. As Brutha and Vorbis travel, they encounter many nations and religions, with Vorbis the matter-of-fact executioner restrained only by diplomacy. When disaster befalls them, and Vorbis spends most of the rest of the trip unconscious, it is Brutha who selflessly drags Vorbis along, hoping to find safety, because it is just the right thing to do. Ultimately, Vorbis sees Brutha conversing with Om, and predictably does not see it for what it is, and he persecutes Brutha for heresy, leading to a typical Discworld story ending.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Terry Pratchett's Discworld series includes stories that are cynical, funny, satirical, occasionally deeply moving, and very entertaining. Like many of his fans, I believe "Small Gods" ranks at the top. It examines religion in society and manages simultaneously to condemn and endorse religion; deeply critical of religion as a tool of oppression yet supportive of religion as a path to goodness and self-enlightenment. The story takes place in Omnia, a country tyrannized by high priests in a theocracy patterned on the Spanish Inquisition. The society is so relentlessly oppressed by the dictators claiming to speak in the name of their god that the religion itself has been lost, buried in tyranny and bureaucracy. In fact, paradoxically in a country ruled by "The Church", there is almost no one left who really follows the religion. Enter Brutha, a simply country boy who is the last person in the entire country who actually believes in their god. The devout Brutha is the hero of the story, and the interaction between him, the Grand Inquisitor, and especially the abandoned god that only Brutha worships makes a very entertaining and thought-provoking novel with a terrific and moving ending.[/hide]

 

 

 

Probably not a book for the fundamentalist Christians/Muslims/Jews though, as I can't imagine it'd be nice to look into a mirror to see mainstream religion for what it really is.. Anyone with an atleast slightly open and philosophical mind, though, should really give it a read.

[tryto]

Sounds interesting. I'll see if I can pick it up at the book store next time I'm there.

 

 

 

A book similar to that(but without the focus on religion) is Number of the Beast, by Heinlein.

 

 

 

"As in other works, Heinlein brings up the philosophical idea of solipsism, but in this book he takes it a step further with the concept called "pantheistic solipsism" or "world-as-myth" the theory that universes are created by the act of imagining them, so that somewhere even fictional worlds (Oz is one of the examples Heinlein uses) are real. Burroughs' device is simply a means of accessing these universes."

[mmmcannibalism]

 

Yes, opinions are based on perspective. But claims about all powerful beings that are "infinite" are not. If they are infinite, they existed before you thought of your personal belief, and thus are objective and based outside of you thinking so.

 

 

 

Of course, if you want to claim that the existence of gods is based on perspective, and god is different for everyone, then it's quite easy to claim that god has been invented by humans, and you'd have a devil of a time trying to deny my claim, while keeping yours. Of course, you're not stating that, it would be shooting yourself in the foot.

 

 

 

 

Love could exist seperate of humans assuming other populated worlds.(point taken just joking)

 

 

 

I will give that you have discredited many parts of "standard" models of god but that does not do anything to the reasoning behind a god. If I start on only the assumption that god exists outside of the physics we understand then he could be an infinite or finite being.

 

 

 

Everyone does look at god a little differently here is why

 

 

 

Lets say I put 360 cameras around a circle at even intervals (one per degree), I then place an object lets say a rock in the center of these cameras and have each one take a picture. Each picture is in a sense just as good of an image of the rock as every other image; however, due to lighting, or characteristics of the rock' shape, we as humans will deem some of these picture preferable to others. Of course one flaw with this model is that their is no true "correct" image, but the point is that there are an infinite amount of possible ways to define god including as nonexistant.

 

 

 

Over time different images of the universe have appeared with different god(s)/lack of god(s). Since we cannot know for sure the only judgement we can make is if there are flaws in religious/secular logic. There is no flaw in my thinking there is some form of a god and that I cant understand god further, just as there is no flaw in saying you dont believe there to be a god, but there is a flaw in believing that god kills everyone that doesnt like pasta enough because a. lots of people dont like pasta and are quite alive, and b. noone has seriously put that idea forward as a possibility. I agree the purple bunnies and other such gods cannot be disproven, but that does not make them a reasonable conclusion for what could exist outside of physics.

[Zierro]

The point of the burden of proof is to prevent people from stating idiotic things, then, because no one can disprove it, claiming it's true. I can't state purple bunnies exist and expect to get away with it, just because no one can claim that it's false.

 

 

 

Then really it all comes down to what you subjectively perceive as "idiotic". I could ask you for proof that time exists, but if I am stubborn and say that your "proofs" do not qualify and the idea of time sounds rubbish then does that justify my positive assertion, "No, time does not exist."? This is what I mean about the 50/50. I don't see one side bringing up a point better than the other side's so I think they are both equally possible based on what we know.

 

 

 

Couldn't I just as easily say the idea of God not existing is idiotic? I might even be tempted to require proof for such an "idiotic" claim.

[tryto]

The point of the burden of proof is to prevent people from stating idiotic things, then, because no one can disprove it, claiming it's true. I can't state purple bunnies exist and expect to get away with it, just because no one can claim that it's false.

 

 

 

Then really it all comes down to what you subjectively perceive as "idiotic". I could ask you for proof that time exists, but if I am stubborn and say that your "proofs" do not qualify and the idea of time sounds rubbish then does that justify my positive assertion, "No, time does not exist."? This is what I mean about the 50/50. I don't see one side bringing up a point better than the other side's so I think they are both equally possible.

 

 

 

Couldn't I just as easily say the idea of God not existing is idiotic? I might even be tempted to require proof for such an "idiotic" claim.

 

 

 

 

 

Because the notion of God not existing is a positive claim. Since idiotic is a subjective idea, this makes ALL positive claims have the burden of proof. When evolution was first proposed by Darwin, it was not accepted until a literal mountain of research affirmed it. That's the entire premise of peer reviewed science journals. Do you read links I post at all, especially the one about negative proof?

 

 

 

There is no proof for my invisible purple bunnies, but most of us would certainly agree that the probability of their nonexistence is not 50%. Just because something is unknown, does not mean it is 50/50. Your point about time is fairly relevant. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining time in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. In the end, time merely exists as a way of defining other quantities. For example, the second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. {wikipedia}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't be silly; of course it's possible to overcome the burden of proof. Global warming did it, for example. If you read the links I gave you, you would see that the burden of proof does not rest on the ridiculous claim, but on the positive claim.

[Zierro]

I don't think you get my point. You're saying that the purpose of using the burden of proof is to filter out any idiotic claims. Well, in the context of God, I think it can go both ways.

 

 

 

And yeah I do read your links and they happen to agree with what I'm saying...

 

 

 

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

 

 

 

"Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore such a being must not exist."

 

 

 

Just because something is unknown, does not mean it is 50/50.

 

 

 

I've reworded things: If you had to make a choice then 50/50 would be the most logical choice based off of what we know.

[mmmcannibalism]

agreed, since their is no reason to believe either claim is illogical or logical 50/50 odds are the "best" model

 

 

 

now, thats not to say the odds arent 30/70 70/30 25/75 etc, in fact I doubt the odds are 50/50 but I have no idea so the only other logical model is existence of god<100% certain>nonexistance of go

 

 

 

actually Ill take that as my model so for the purposes of discussion im going off of existence of god<100% certain>nonexistance of god.

 

 

 

going off of that

 

 

 

if y coordiante =logic then

 

 

 

f(athiesm)=f(agnosticism)>f(specific religion)

 

 

 

specific religion only being less logical because if there is more then one possible model of god, believing in a certain one raises odds of being incorrect above that of simply believing god is possible.

[tryto]

"Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore such a being must not exist."

 

 

 

The reason that is a fallacy is because it uses the word must. Something *can* exist without evidence for it, it's just unlikely and it is best not to make claims of it's existence without proof. For example, hundreds of years ago, there was no evidence of the existence of Neptune, but it did very much exist.

 

 

 

No one's using the word must: I'll admit that a deity of some sort could exist(not the Abrahamic one, it's self-contradicting and noncognitive) There's just no reason to think that it does without some sort of proof. My claim is: Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore it is best to make no claim that such a being exists, which is a rewording of the wiki quote.

 

 

 

This probability line of reasoning is complete bs; it's all completely speculative. I know the reason you are pursuing it, and your predicates are wrong. my invisible bunnies have no evidence either way, so you would be obligated to argue that their chance of existence is 50/50, while it is clearly NOT. Again, this is also committing the fallacy of assuming that the middle is correct simply because it is the middle. We don't know nothing; we know that we are speculating on the existence of a supernatural being, with no proof for it. As well, this being serves no logical purpose(that is, it answers no questions) as it raises infinitely more questions once you assume it's existence. This also violates Occam's Razor, as well as being non-cognitive(as shown in my post a few pages ago which no one answered)

 

 

 

If you don't want to read that; assigning speculative probabilities to something just for the sake of assigning probabilities does not affect it's nonexistence or existence, and is a complete red herring.

[Lenticular_J]

There's just no reason to think that it does without some sort of proof.

 

Some people aren't so anal that they have to have proof for every little thing - or every biggle thing.

 

 

 

EDIT: Not that that's a bad thing. Or a good thing. Just a thing.

[mmmcannibalism]

I could argue that claiming god does not exist is the claim that needs proof because most of the world believes there to be a god and it is a subjective claim. Similair to how we had to prove the earth was round because most people believed it was flat. Since they had no physics that could prove the roundness of earth general consensus determined what is true.

 

 

 

I dont believe that, burden of proof is equal here but just pointing out that you dont have a proof advantage.

[tryto]

I could argue that claiming god does not exist is the claim that needs proof because most of the world believes there to be a god and it is a subjective claim. Similair to how we had to prove the earth was round because most people believed it was flat. Since they had no physics that could prove the roundness of earth general consensus determined what is true.

 

 

 

I dont believe that, burden of proof is equal here but just pointing out that you dont have a proof advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, but there are two problems with that.

 

Firstly, any single god is in a minority in the world. Christianity is a minority; more people do not believe in Jesus than there are Christians. Same for Muslims and any other group.

 

As well, lack of belief is the default position. No baby believes in a god, and there would have been no notion of a god before the first person thought of it(or was spoken to by one, whatever myth you choose to believe).

 

 

 

That is why it is a positive claim. I will not deny that strong atheism does not carry some burden of proof, but it is less than theism, and I support that with non cognitivism, Occam's Razor, and the The Euthyphro Dilemma.

 

 

 

Now can we move on. This topic is boring me and Lent :P.

 

 

 

Anyone care to address my argument from non cognitivism?

 

 

 

Oh, I'm sorry, someone did and I missed it cannibal.

 

 

 

God cannot transcend logic.

 

1) If "Human logic" is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of God is ridiculous. Because it is by Human logic, thought and mentality that we arrive at the concept of God in the first place

 

 

 

2) To say that god doesn't obey logical rules, to say that God could create a round square, for example, is to say that the abilities of god are abilities that cannot logically exist.

 

 

 

3) "Beyond logic" is a synonym for "irrational", and admissions of beliefs that are beyond logic is an admission that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible.

 

 

 

As well, if you claim that god is beyond logic, then you allow me to ask questions such as "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?", and you do not have the easy escape of saying that he cannot do illogical things, as you just said he is.

[MisterGreen]

No baby believes in a god, and there would have been no notion of a god before the first person thought of it(or was spoken to by one, whatever myth you choose to believe).

 

 

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209215824AAnrv8G

[tryto]

No baby believes in a god, and there would have been no notion of a god before the first person thought of it(or was spoken to by one, whatever myth you choose to believe).

 

 

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209215824AAnrv8G

 

 

 

http://www.afb.org/braillebug/askkeller ... ueid=20073

 

 

 

A more reputable source.

 

 

 

"As a child, Helen Keller had been told that Mother Nature had made the sky, trees, water, and all living creatures. However, as she grew older, she inquired about God, and was baffled. Her friends tried to tell her that God was the creator, and that he was everywhere, that he knew all the needs, joys, and sorrows of every human life, and that nothing happened without his foreknowledge and providence. Helen Keller was drawn irresistibly to such a glorious, lovable being, and longed to really understand something about him. "

[MisterGreen]

No baby believes in a god, and there would have been no notion of a god before the first person thought of it(or was spoken to by one, whatever myth you choose to believe).

 

 

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209215824AAnrv8G

 

 

 

http://www.afb.org/braillebug/askkeller ... ueid=20073

 

 

 

A more reputable source.

 

 

 

"As a child, Helen Keller had been told that Mother Nature had made the sky, trees, water, and all living creatures. However, as she grew older, she inquired about God, and was baffled. Her friends tried to tell her that God was the creator, and that he was everywhere, that he knew all the needs, joys, and sorrows of every human life, and that nothing happened without his foreknowledge and providence. Helen Keller was drawn irresistibly to such a glorious, lovable being, and longed to really understand something about him. "

 

 

 

"In one of her letters, Helen told Bishop Brooks that she had always known about God, even before she had any words."

 

 

 

-my source

[warri0r45]

I'll try this one last time with another example. If there were two possible outcomes to shooting a target (hit or miss), would you say the probability of each is 0.5 before doing a study? No, of course you wouldn't. There are too many unknowns to determine the probability - the skill of the marksman, the size of the target, the range from the target, etc. Similarly, with the existence of god there is far too much we don't know or can't control. Back to the example, even if we knew about all of these variables and gave it our best guess, it would still be just that - a guess. You first need to have some hits and misses, and then you can assess the probability. For example, you might get 750 hits and 250 misses. With a sample size of 1000, we can be reasonably confident that the probability of hits and misses is 0.75 and 0.25, respectively.

 

 

 

We can't do a study though. Therefore if you ask me, theists and atheists bring up equal points and should be treated as such. Maybe you missed my post where I apologized for bringing up probabilities but I think the point still stands. Instead of nitpicking technicalities, why not look at the main point? We know nothing about this concept. Therefore saying theists can be any more correct than atheists or vice versa is just plain wrong. None of us know!

 

 

 

Nitpicking technicalities? I think you should take note of that yourself before posting something like this:

If something is possible, it tells me nothing of how probable it is. The sun rising tomorrow and me becoming the next Prime Minister of Australia are both possible, but they're on the opposite end of the scale as far as probability goes. It should be pretty simple to see that possibility and probability are fundamentally different concepts.

 

 

 

Nothing? I'm sure that's not true. If something is possible, then that shows there is a probability of over 0% for it being true. That's saying something about the probability.

 

 

 

As for the main point, thanks for clearing it up, but I couldn't help but get mixed messages when you claimed again that they are "both as likely to be true" after saying that we can't put a probability on it.

 

 

 

Allow me to reword myself to avoid any further confusion: If you had to make a guess then 50/50 would be the most logical answer.

 

 

 

Still, the same problem remains - how can you say any one probability is the most logical without doing a study or knowing to some degree? It seems to me that you're just appealing to 50/50 being the "most logical" because it sounds the most fair. As far as I'm concerned it's an entirely illogical question, so the 50/50 loses any meaning. Are they both possible? Sure. Are they equally likely or is equal likelihood the most logical answer? No, I don't think so at all.

 

 

 

It doesn't look like we'll agree on this point, so I'll agree to disagree.

[Saru Inc]

No baby believes in a god, and there would have been no notion of a god before the first person thought of it(or was spoken to by one, whatever myth you choose to believe).

 

 

 

Well technically, a baby does not believe in Physics, or atoms, or elements, or Pi, or Square roots, but someone had to tell them. Does that mean none of those are true? Of course not, simply because someone doesn't know something, doesn't mean it can't exist. While this would make sense with the God dilemma, couldn't God have waited, and shown himself to the first man and or woman? He\she (just speaking about the idea in general, not the Christian God) have given them a clean slate, semi similar to Tabula Rosa, and them shown himself, and give them the choice? If that's true, let's say it is, then of course the baby wouldn't know, because the God would not want the baby to know, for any reason. But simply because one does not know of something naturally, doesn't mean it can't exist.

[mmmcannibalism]

 

1) If "Human logic" is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of God is ridiculous. Because it is by Human logic, thought and mentality that we arrive at the concept of God in the first place

 

 

 

2) To say that god doesn't obey logical rules, to say that God could create a round square, for example, is to say that the abilities of god are abilities that cannot logically exist.

 

 

 

3) "Beyond logic" is a synonym for "irrational", and admissions of beliefs that are beyond logic is an admission that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible.

 

 

 

As well, if you claim that god is beyond logic, then you allow me to ask questions such as "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?", and you do not have the easy escape of saying that he cannot do illogical things, as you just said he is.

 

 

 

realizes from that section of your post atheism does have a bit more logical proof then theism, attributed to god creating logical paradoxes.

 

 

 

on your points

 

 

 

1) I guess in a way debating the existence of god is actually ridiculous because neither of us can prove our side. Its also could be considered that human logic is flawed which would explain the flaws in the human concept of god. I realize this isnt a good defense but its hard to defend something that is inherently illogical with logic

 

 

 

2) I agree that most/all abilities a god could have would disobey logic; after all, we derive our logic from natural laws which god would not be regulated by. Which means a debate on if god can exist is at its purest form a debate on whether or not logical laws have to apply to everything.

 

 

 

3) beyond logic may mean irrational(see 2) but then again I admit a god would have to disobey logic so its not an inconsistancy. I believe its possible for things to exist in a way that seems illogical to us and you dont, so we are ending up in circles because whether or not god exists will come down to faith or lack there of in him/her/it. Also, two small examples on irrational things existing (-1)^(1/2) being square root of negative one and pi. I dont remember specifics of story but apparently at least one person was killed for pointing out things like pi cant be located on a number line due to irrationality, so if it has no location its odd it exists. I realize math=/=metaphysics but I think the point is reasonable

 

 

 

I have to concede atheism has a slightly more logical basis for its belief. This debate has turned into quite an interesting exercise, always a good outcome for such things. I have to concede that I cant logically prove god and that an argument against god is potentially more reasonable, though the statement (chance god exists)<100%>(chance god doesnt exist) so agnosticism stands as logical. Only point I have left to argue is that you cant that god cannot exist. Nice job on the proof tryto

[Shinjula]

agreed, since their is no reason to believe either claim is illogical or logical 50/50 odds are the "best" model

 

The problem comes because you are using Maths and Maths has rules and you are breaking them.

 

The logical 'best model' is not one randomly picked, it is one which represents the data known.

 

It is simply x/1-x where x >0 and x <1. You really can't assign random numbers to things just because they are unknown, that is not how algebra works.

 

 

 

If you have a quadratic equation x^2 -1 = 0, you cant solve it to (x+1)(x-1)=0 and then just pick x=1 randomly as the answer, you have to say either x=1 or x=-1 because otherwise its an incomplete solution, the same goes for your probablilty, you can't just pick one of the answers and say its the answer, it's just not true.

[Rebdragon]

It doesn't look like we'll agree on this point, so I'll agree to disagree.

 

I say we take it to a vote.

 

 

 

All people on warri0r's side, raise your hands.

 

 

 

Now, all morons on Zierro's side, raise your hands.

 

 

 

What do you know. Thirty to two, con-side wins. It looks like the other one is the guy who said the square root of negative one is irrational (kidding, kidding, I'm only laughing at the moronic and defeated 50/50 idea, not you mate. Unless you buy into it, then I am laughing at you).

[Shinjula]

Um, Reb, Maths is something to be debated and a conclusion reached, its not there for you to insult people with, if we can't convince him with logic, then we are obviously not doing it correctly.

 

 

 

Insults just make you look like you can't debate properly.

[tryto]

No baby believes in a god, and there would have been no notion of a god before the first person thought of it(or was spoken to by one, whatever myth you choose to believe).

 

 

 

Well technically, a baby does not believe in Physics, or atoms, or elements, or Pi, or Square roots, but someone had to tell them. Does that mean none of those are true? Of course not, simply because someone doesn't know something, doesn't mean it can't exist. While this would make sense with the God dilemma, couldn't God have waited, and shown himself to the first man and or woman? He\she (just speaking about the idea in general, not the Christian God) have given them a clean slate, semi similar to Tabula Rosa, and them shown himself, and give them the choice? If that's true, let's say it is, then of course the baby wouldn't know, because the God would not want the baby to know, for any reason. But simply because one does not know of something naturally, doesn't mean it can't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't read my post. It means that for them to be rationally argued about, they accept the burden of proof, because they are not the default position, if someone was born alone in the wilderness, not that they are untrue because of it. I'll respond to cannibalisms post later today, I have classes.